Madden asks to revisit Wonderland property vote, but it gets tabled indefinitely
OCEAN CITY — A surprise motion by City Council Vice President Pete Madden to revisit the vote on the Wonderland Pier property sparked an intense discussion on council and furious reaction from public speakers.
After mixed reactions from councilmen, followed by charges from public partisans that Madden’s motion was a sneak attack that would destroy the credibility of City Council, combined with threats of a lawsuit and that opponents would “go to war,” the motion was tabled 5-1. Only Madden voted no. Councilman Jody Levchuk was absent.
This was essentially a repeat of the ordinance before council at the Aug. 21 meeting that drew an overflow crowd. At that meeting, councilmen voted 6-1 against sending the former amusement park property at 600 Boardwalk to the Planning Board, seeking a recommendation on whether it would deem the site “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
The vote came after nearly two hours of spirited public comment both for and against the motion, which was needed by developer and property owner Eustace Mita for his proposed 252-room, eight-story luxury hotel at the site.
It wasn’t a vote on the hotel proposal, but it would have been the first step in potentially changing the zoning at the site, which is limited to amusement parks and other types of boardwalk shops.
When council voted no to referring the property to the Planning Board, Mita said he was giving up on his hotel project and putting the property up for sale for $25 million. He said he has since received offers for the property, both from developers who reportedly want some type of housing component there — not a permitted use.
Most council members agreed in August that it was wrong to change zoning for one property and they recommended a Master Plan review process instead to look at the entire boardwalk and city at large.
Deep into Thursday night’s meeting, Madden asked his colleagues to revisit that vote. His proposed ordinance was not on the meeting agenda, something that triggered outrage during public comment and concern from more than one council member.
Madden, who had been the lone vote in August to send the property to the Planning Board, reasoned that in light of recent events at the site and the purchase offers that have come in, it made sense to revisit it.
He argued any future use of the site is going to require some kind of change in what is allowed as a permitted use on the boardwalk.
“To me, we should follow that process and look at that area through the Planning Board’s eyes, get a response back from the Planning Board as to is this an area in need of redevelopment or not,” he said. “Then we would have opportunity to make a decision on whether to move forward.”
City Solicitor Dorothy McCrosson distributed the written ordinance Madden requested, a move that provoked a different heated back-and-forth.
McCrosson said the ordinance was just to send the property to the Planning Board for review, but that no concept for any proposed project was involved. She noted it could allow council the ability to help shape what went on the site in the future, but even so they wouldn’t have to approve any project.
Fourth Ward Councilman Dave Winslow, who pushed in August to go to a Master Plan review, said he was growing concerned abut the property remaining in its current state for an extended period.
The amusement park closed in mid-October 2024 and sat idle this past summer. Mita opened the main building facing the boardwalk with no rides, but a pizza shop and arcade games.
“This is kind of at a standstill now. We’re not obligating anything to anybody,” he said. “I don’t see a downside to sending it to the Planning Board.”
He noted there were some workable solutions that were included but not enacted in the current Master Plan.
“I don’t think it serves the city well to have a boarded-up place for five or 10 years,” Winslow said.
Second Ward Councilman Keith Hartzell said he would not recommend sending the property to the Planning Board. Instead, he suggested City Council form a subcommittee to consider rezoning that property to allow a use of mixed residential and boardwalk use. He later said that subcommittee could include a lot of citizens as well.
At-large Councilman Sean Barnes said he wanted council to stick with its Aug. 21 vote and that he wasn’t comfortable with Madden presenting the ordinance without prior notice. Barnes said he, Hartzell and Winslow had discussed the idea of a subcommittee.
Barnes said it was critical that the public be engaged in the process “and I’m sure no one in the public” knew that type of vote would happen at the meeting.
At-large Councilman Tony Policini said he was interested in trying to find out the facts and that the Planning Board could also recommend the site was not in need of rehabilitation.
Because of the motion, council had to go out for public comment, which came in fast and furious.
Jim Kelly, part of Ocean City 2050, an organization that fought Mita’s hotel plan, called Madden’s motion “a sneak attack” that was putting council’s integrity on the table.
“From public appearances, your vice president worked secretly with your solicitor behind everyone else’s back to bring this forward tonight,” Kelly said. Noting council’s previous promises that the public would stay informed, he added, “If you move forward, you are violating that trust with the city.”
His comments caused McCrosson to interject.
“Lest sneak attack become a sound bite from the meeting, as you know this is not the first time when one of you has come to me and said, ‘I’d like to propose something tonight. What’s the process and what’s the best way to do it?’ You are all legislators,” she said. “Any one of you can raise anything at the table. The best way to do it, I believe, is in writing.
“Mr. Madden asked me to put it in writing, which is his right. He is a legislator and wants to bring something forward, putting it in writing so you could each see what you were voting for,” McCrosson continued. “Mr. Madden did nothing wrong by coming forward and proposing something at the table. His integrity should not be impugned just for exercising his discretion as a legislator to bring something forward at the meeting.”
The next speaker made an even more intense attack.
Bill Merritt, of Friends of OCNJ History & Culture, another group that opposed Mita’s hotel plan, said the community was incredibly proud of council after its 6-1 vote in August.
He said council chose the right path by not doing something for a single developer because it wasn’t fair for the rest of the boardwalk property owners.
“To reverse this would be to crush any trust in this council,” Merritt said, recalling the “miserable summer” of angry citizens and signs around the city.
“It’s all going to come back. This is the wrong process. This is a sneak attack. You’re trying to explain why it’s not, but it is,” he said. “To not give notice to the rest of community is unconscionable.”
To vote in favor of Madden’s ordinance would be going from “having your best night Aug. 21 to having your worst night ever.
“You’re going to get sued. People will be angry. I don’t understand why you would do it … I can’t imagine a worse thing you could do,” Merritt said. “This is truly an embarrassment.”
If council went forward with it, he added, “We’re ready to go to war.”
Winslow responded that before it was a vote about one guy with a hotel proposal, but this was just seeking advice from the Planning Board. He also said he was irritated with people questioning his integrity, and threatening to sue, and that he would disregard them.
Polcini said if council were going to bring it back up, it should wait so there is time for public input. He made a motion to table.
After discussions among council members, they voted 5-1 to table the ordinance indefinitely.
– By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
